Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the present petition, the petitioner sought issuance of an oustee certificate under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme (‘R & R Scheme’), following the acquisition of his land for the Koldam Hydroelectric Project. A Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., while dismissing the petition, held that since the petitioner was not a resident of the affected village at the time of acquisition as indicated by the absence of his entry in Panchayat Parivar Register, his claim raised 16 years later lacked merit and thus was rightly rejected by the competent authority.
Background:
In 2000, two biswas of petitioner’s land, in the Village Ahan, were acquired for the construction of Koldam Hydroelectric Project. Although he was compensated for the same, the benefits which accrued to him under the R & R Scheme were denied. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that in 2016, the petitioner had approached the competent Authority, who had wrongly rejected his representation. Hence this writ petition was filed, praying for direction to the respondents to issue an oustee certificate in his favour so that he could get the benefit of R & R Scheme.
The counsel for National Thermal Power Corporation (‘NTPC’) contended that the filing of this petition was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. He submitted that the petitioner was a resident of Village Binga, District Mandi and he had purchased the two biswas of land in the village concerned, knowing that the land there was being acquired for the construction of Koldam Hydroelectric Project. It was alleged that the purchase was also strategic as the petitioner was aware of the forthcoming project and after the land was acquired and he was compensated, he raised the issue belatedly after 16 years.
He further pointed out that Clause 2.2.3 of the R & R Scheme stated that the benefit thereof was permissible only in favour of persons who were either rendered houseless on account of the acquisition of their property or landless as defined therein. As per the list of houseless or landless families of Koldam Project, village Aahan, the petitioner was neither houseless nor landless and therefore not eligible for the benefit as there was no entry in the Panchayat Parivar Register relating to the petitioner on the date when the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’).
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the R & R Scheme was framed by the State Government for the benefit of the families who were to be affected by the acquisition of private land, which would render some of them houseless and landless. However, it was for the benefit of only those who were permanently residing in the area and who were to be rendered houseless and landless on account of acquisition proceedings for the purpose of construction.
The Court noted that when the petitioner’s land was acquired in 2000, his name was not registered in the Panchayat Parivar Register of the village concerned as he was not a resident there, which was a pre-condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of the R & R Scheme. The Court also noted the definition of ‘family’ as defined in an agreement between NTPC and the State of H.P. and H.P. State Electricity Board.
The Court highlighted that the petitioner did not explain as to why he raked up the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement after 16 years as from the date of acquisition of his property. Thus, the Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the petitioner was not eligible for the benefits of the R & R Scheme as he did not fulfill the criteria laid down in the Scheme or the agreement as he was not a resident of the affected village and therefore, his case was rightly rejected by the Authorities.
[Nathu v. NTPC, CWP No. 1482 of 2019, decided on 27-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
